[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZWjpNr3ZzvU4TDC8@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2023 19:57:42 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Nhat Pham <nphamcs@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
cerasuolodomenico@...il.com, yosryahmed@...gle.com,
sjenning@...hat.com, ddstreet@...e.org, vitaly.wool@...sulko.com,
mhocko@...nel.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev, shakeelb@...gle.com,
muchun.song@...ux.dev, chrisl@...nel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
kernel-team@...a.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/6] list_lru: allows explicit memcg and NUMA node
selection
On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 11:40:18AM -0800, Nhat Pham wrote:
> This patch changes list_lru interface so that the caller must explicitly
> specify numa node and memcg when adding and removing objects. The old
> list_lru_add() and list_lru_del() are renamed to list_lru_add_obj() and
> list_lru_del_obj(), respectively.
Wouldn't it be better to add list_lru_add_memcg() and
list_lru_del_memcg() and have:
+bool list_lru_del(struct list_lru *lru, struct list_head *item)
+{
+ int nid = page_to_nid(virt_to_page(item));
+ struct mem_cgroup *memcg = list_lru_memcg_aware(lru) ?
+ mem_cgroup_from_slab_obj(item) : NULL;
+
+ return list_lru_del_memcg(lru, item, nid, memcg);
+}
Seems like _most_ callers will want the original versions and only
a few will want the explicit memcg/nid versions. No?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists